


i-- */nl 






jfgt-. '"■ . 










LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

%pEli\@«j^ri# fa- 

Sh.elf-;_l*4i 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



I ! 



OBSERVATIONS 



DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, 



CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS ATTENDING ITS 
ATTESTATION. 



BY ROBKRDEAU BUCHANAN. 



OBSERVATIONS 



ON THE 



DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 



WITH A 



CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS ATTENDING ITS 

E 



REPRINTED WITH SOME ALTERATIONS PROM THE 

LIFE of the Hon. THOMAS McKEAN, LL. D., 

Signer op the Declaration op Independence. 



y 



BY KOBERDEAU BUCHANAN. 



LANCASTER, PA.: 

INQUIRER PRINTING COMPANY. 
1890. 




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1890, by Roberdeau 
Buchanan, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



OBSERVATIONS 



DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 



THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.— HOW PASSED. 

It is a general popular belief that the Declaration of In- 
dependence was signed on the 4th of July, 1776, as it now 
appears by those whose names are inseparably a part of it. 
The engrossed Declaration implies this, strengthened by the 
printed journals of Congress. The first to challenge this com- 
monly received opinion, according to Judge Chamberlain in his 
Authentication , was Mr. McKean; and since his day many 
eminent writers have discussed the subject. Even the signers 
themselves — McKean, Jefferson and Adams, give conflicting 
accounts of the matter. 

The question as stated by Judge Chamberlain is this: "Was 
the draught of the Declaration of Independence, which, after 
various amendments, was finally agreed to on the afternoon of 
July 4th, forthwith engrossed on paper, and thereupon sub- 
scribed by all the members then present except Dickinson ?" 
A secondary question : " Was the Declaration signed by any 
one on July 4th, 1776?" seems to be an issue not heretofore 
raised by any historian ; but tacitly accepted in the affirmative 
as an established fact. The author has discussed this question 
on a subsequent page. 

Mr. McKean explicitly denies in four separate letters, that 
the Declaration was generally signed on July 4th: First, m 
a letter to Alexander J. Dallas, dated September 26, 1796, 



4 OBSERVATIONS ON THE 

and published in " Sanderson's Lives ;" secondly, in a letter 
to Governor Rodney, dated Philadelphia, August 22, 1813 ;* 
thirdly, in the letter to Mr. Adams of January, 1814, 2 these 
tvro letters last named are almost identical, word for word, in 
the portions relating to this matter under discussion ; and, 
fourthly, in a letter of June 16, 1817 (eight days before his 
death), to William McCorkle and Son, 3 in which the letter to 
Mr. Dallas is largely quoted. 

In the first named letter, September 26, 1796, in speaking 
of the printed journals, Mr. McKean says : 

"By the printed publications referred to, it would appear as if 
the fifty-five gentlemen whose names are there printed, and none 
other, were on that day personally present in congress and as- 
senting to the Declaration ; whereas the truth is otherwise. . . . 

"Modesty should not rob any man of his just honor, when by 
that honor his modesty cannot be offended. My name is not 
in the printed journals of congress as a party to the Declaration 
of Independence; and this, like an error of the first concoction, has 
vitiated most of the subsequent publications; and yet the fact is, 
that I was then a member of congress for the state of Delaware, 
was personally present in congress, and voted in favor of independ- 
ence on the fourth of July, 1776, and signed the declaration 
after it had been engrossed on parchment, where my name in my 
own handwriting still appears. 

''I do not know how the misstatement in the printed journals 
has happened. The manuscript public journal has no names an- 
nexed to the Declaration of Independence, nor has the secret jour- 
nal ; but it appears by the latter, that on the nineteenth day of 
July, 1776, the congress directed that it should be engrossed on 
parchment and signed by every member, and that it was so pro- 
duced on the second of August, and signed. This is interlined in 
the secret journal, in the handwriting of Charles Thomson, esquire, 
the secretary. The present secretary of state of the United 
States and myself have lately inspected the journals, and seen this." 

In the letter to Mr. Adams, after speaking of other matters, 
Mr. McKean continues as follows: 

"On the 1st July, 1776, the question was taken in the com- 

1 In possession of T. M. Rodney, Esq., published in fac-simile in Brother- 
head's Book of the Signers, Phila., 1861 ; quoted in the Address of Hon. 
Thomas F. Bayard at the unveiling of the monument to Caesar Rodney in 
Dover, 1889; and partly quoted in Harp. Mag., vol. lxvii., p. 208 et seq. 

2 J¥iles' Reg., July 12, 1817, xii., 305 et seq. ; Adams 1 Works, C. F. Adamsi 
x., 87 ; Mass. Hist. Col., 5th Ser., iv., 505, and partly quoted in Judge Cham- 
berlain's Authentication, Dec. lnd. 

3 Mies' Reg., xii., 278 ; Duane's Diary of Christopher Marshall ; The Port- 
folio, Sept., 1817, p. 246, quoting Freeman's Journal. 



DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 5 

mittee of the whole of Congress, when Pennsylvania, represented 
by seven members then present, voted against it — four to three; 
among the majority were Robert Morris and John Dickinson ; 
Delaware (having only two present, namely, myself and Mr. Read) 
was divided; all the other states voting in favor of it. There- 
port was delayed until the 4th ; and, in the mean time, I sent an 
express for Caesar Rodney to Dover, in the county of Kent in 
Delaware, at my private expense, whom I met at the statediouse 
door, on the 4th of July, in his boots. He resided eighty miles 
from the city, and just arrived as congress met. The question 
was taken, Delaware voted in favor of independence; Pennsyl- 
vania (there being five members present, Messrs. Dickinson and 
Morris absent) voted also for it; Messrs. Willing and Humphreys 
were against it. Thus the thirteen states were unanimous in 
favor of independence. Notwithstanding this, in the printed pub- 
lic journal of congress for 1776, Vol. 2, it appears that the decla- 
ration of independence was declared on the 4th of July, 1776, by 
the gentlemen whose names are there inserted, whereas no person 
signed it on that day ; and, among the names there inserted, one 
gentleman, namely, George Read, Esq,, was not in favor of it, and 
seven were not in Congress on that day, 1 namely, Messrs. Morris, 
Rush, Clymer, Smith, Taylor and Ross, all of Pennsylvania, and 
Mr. Thornton of New-Hampshire ; nor were the six gentlemen 
last named, members of congress on the 4th of July. The five 
for Pennsylvania were appointed delegates by the convention ot 
that State on the 20th July, and Mr. Thornton took his seat in 

1 Willis P. Hazard, in his edition of Watson's Annals, iii, 222, corrects this 
sentence : Morris should be Messrs., but Hazard is still wrong. The sen- 
tence is correct, as shown by what follows: Morris was " not in Congress on 
that day," because he was absent, as Mr. McKean says above ; the five 
others were not, because they had not then been elected, as he says below. 
In the early part of this letter, in speaking of the vote, Mr. McKean names 
Morris and Dickinson as absent ; here, in speaking of the signers, he properly 
names Morris only. 

After the publication of a letter of Mr. McKean in Potter's American 
Monthly (vols, iv.-v., 1875), a controversy sprang up, whether Mr. McKean 
should not have mentioned nine instead of seven members of Congress ; but 
the editors as well as the contributors of that magazine are still mistaken in 
going back to December, 1774, for the election of delegates. A later elec- 
tion, November 6, 1775 [Journals of Cong.), returned nine members — Mor- 
ton, Dickinson, Morris, Franklin, Humphreys, Diddle, Willing, Allen and 
Wilson. Mr. McKean mentions seven; the other two are Biddle, who was 
sick and died during the session, and Allen, a British sympathizer (Scharf 
and Westeott, i., 317). The latter abandoned his seat, June 14th, and Mr. 
McKean knew that two seats were permanently vacated, so that Pennsylva- 
nia was represented by seven only. Of the above, Morton, Morris, Franklin 
and Wilson signed in August; their election did not hold over, for they 
were re-elected July 20, 1776, together with Ross, Clymer, Rush, Smith 
and Taylor, nine in all, who signed in behalf of Pennsylvania. I think this 
matter is now clearly and correctly stated. 



6 OBSERVATIONS ON THE 

Congress, for the first time, on the 4th November following ; 
when the names of Henry Wisner, of New York, 1 and Thomas 
McKean, of Delaware, are not printed as subscribers, though both 
were present in Congress on the 4th of July and voted for inde- 
pendence. 

Here false colors are certainly hung out ; there is culpability 
somewhere: what I have heard as an explanation is as follows: 
When the declaration was voted, it was ordered to be engrossed 
on parchment and then signed, and that a few days afterwards a 
resolution was entered on the secret journal that no person should 
have a seat in congress during that year until he should have 

signed the declaration of independence After the 4th 

July I was not in Congress for several months, having marched 
with a regiment of associators as colonel, to support general 
Washington, until the flying camp often thousand men was com- 
pleted. When the associators were, discharged, I returned to 
Philadelphia, took my seat in Congress and signed my name to 
the Declaration on parchment. This transaction should be truly 
stated, and the then secret journal should be made public. In the 
manuscript journal, Mr. Pickering, then secretary of state, and 
myself saw a printed half sheet of paper, 2 with the names of the 
members afterward in the printed journals stitched in. We ex- 
amined the parchment where my name is signed in my own hand- 
writing." 

Mr. McKean then turns to other subjects, and concludes : 

" My sight fades very fast, though my writing may not dis- 
cover it. God bless you. 

Your friend, THO'S McKEAN. 
His Excellency John Adams. 

Mr. Jefferson holds the contrary side of the question in his 
memoranda, as follows : 3 

" The Declaration thus signed on the 4th, on paper, was en- 
grossed on parchment, and signed again on the 2d of August." 

1 Some authors have thought Mr. McKean was mistaken that Mr. Wisner 
voted for independence, because the New York delegates had not been so 
instructed, and since but twelve States voted on July 2d. Franklin Burdge, 
however, published in 18*78 a memorial of Henry Wisner, quoting letters of 
his to show that he did vote for independence, and was the only New 
Yorker who so voted. 

2 There is no "printed half-sheet of paper " now in the journals. Mr. Mc- 
Kean saw the journals when Mr. Pickering was Secretary of State, 1795- 
1800, about seventeen years before writing this letter, and may confound 
the printed Declaration watered in, with some other paper, real or imagin- 
ary, not now known. 

s Jefferson's Writings, H. A. Washington, Washington, D. C, i, 26, 120-2, 
vii., 124; Randall's Life, i., 171. 



DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 7 

And again, in a letter of May 12, 1819, to Samuel Adams 
Wells : 

" It was not till the 2d of July, that the Declaration itself was 
taken up ; nor till the 4th, that it was decided, and it was signed 
by every member present, except Mr. Dickinson " 

Mr. Adams takes the same side of the question with Mr. 
Jefferson. In transmitting the above letter of Mr. McKean to 
Mercy Warren for her reading, he writes under date of 
Quincy, February 2, 1814 :» 

" Dear Madam: I send you a curiosity. Mr. McKean is mis- 
taken in a day or two. The final vote of independence, after the 
last debate, was passed on the 2d or 3d of July, and the Declara- 
tion prepared and signed on the 4th. 

"What are we to think of history, when, in less than forty years, 
such diversities appear in the memories of living persons, who were 
witnesses?" 

These conflicting statements should now be carefully criti- 
cised. Mr. Adams here, in his old age, contradicts what he 
himself said thirty-eight years before in a letter to Samuel 
Chase. On July 9th, five days after the passage of the Dec- 
laration, he writes : " As soon as an American seal is pre- 
pared, I conjecture that the declaration will be subscribed by 
all the members." 2 From which we may infer that the Dec- 
laration had not then been signed. The earlier letter as 
contemporary evidence is deserving of more credit than the 
later one. 

As to Mr. Jefferson, Judge Chamberlain has shown in his 
Authentication, p. 8-9, that Mr. Jefferson's Notes were not 
made at the time alleged, but subsequently, and aided by the 
printed journals. "Hence his notes lose the authority of con- 
temporaneous entries." 

George Washington Greene says : 3 " Mr. Jefferson's memory 
failed him singularly in his history of that document, important 
as the part he bore in it was." 

And after the appearance of Mrs. Morris' article on the 
Declaration in Potter's American Monthly, several others 
wrote expressing their opinions. Among whom, William Duane 
writes: 4 "Mr. Jefferson was so clearly wrong in stating that 
Pennsylvania's vote for Independence was secured by the ap- 

1 Mass. Hist. Collections, 5th Ser., iv., 505. 

"'Adams' Works, ed. 1860, ix., 421 ; Scharf and Westcott, Hist.. L, 319. 

s Histor. View Amer. Rev., 379. 

♦Vols, iv.-v., for 1875, p. 785. 



8 OBSERVATIONS ON THE 

pearance of new members on the fourth of July, that we have 
a right to suspect him in error in other points." Another 
writer, 1 name unknown, in an article, The Declaration of In- 
dependence, The statements of Thomas MeKean and Thomas 
Jefferson compared, gives their statements in full, and says: 
" A gentleman of good repute, as a historical and antiquarian 
scholar, disagrees with Mrs. Morris, and writes us as follows : 
' Mr. Jefferson, at the time he wrote his autobiography, was 
very old ; and we all know that the memory is the first of the 
mental faculties to show signs of decay. He confused what 
was done in Congress in August, with what was done in July. 
He had forgotten the Mecklenburg Declaration of Indepen- 
dence. His account cannot be compared with the clear and 
positive statements of Governor Thomas MeKean.'" 

Mr. McKean's first statement on this subject was made 
twenty years after the Declaration was signed. Age had not, 
at this time or any other time, impaired his mental faculties ; 
witness his subsequent vigor ten years later, while Governor of 
Pennsylvania, and the letter to William McCorkle and son, 
eight days before his death. His first statement, he reiterated 
during the next twenty-one years. In the main facts, his 
statements have not been impeached, although in some col- 
lateral matters of minor importance he may be in error. 

Among recent writers, the opinion is almost unanimous that 
the Declaration was not generally signed on the 4th July, but 
was subscribed or authenticated by John Hancock president, 
and Charles Thomson secretary. 

In his recent history, Justin Winsor 2 states distinctly that 
it was signed by the president and secretary. "The best 
investigators of our day are agreed that the president and 
secretary alone signed it on that day/' 

Daniel Webster, 3 Robert C. Winthrop, 4 and George Wash- 
ington Greene, 5 hold that it was authenticated by the signa- 
tures of the president and secretary. 

Peter Force, 6 the most thorough and reliable investigator of 
revolutionary history, George Bancroft 7 and Richard Frothing- 

iVols. iv.-v., for 1875, p. 651. 

2 Narrative and Crit. History of Amer., 1888-9, v., 231 et seq. 

3 Works, Boston, 18*72, i., 129. 

♦Oration, July 4, 1876, Boston, 1876, p. 29. 

b Hislor. View of Amer. Rev., N. Y., 1872, p. 101, 379. 

6 The Dec. Ind., or Notes on Lord Mahoris Hist., London, 1855, p. 61. 

''Hist. U. S., ed. 1885, iv., 452 ; 1879, v., 332. 



DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 9 

ham 1 rather vaguely and perhaps cautiously state that it was 
authenticated by the president and secretary. 

Benson J. Lossing formerly stated 2 that the Declaration was 
signed by the president alone, but has since changed his opin- 
ion, and has now come to the conclusion that it was signed by 
the members on the paper on which it had been written.' 

Hildnth's History of the United States (iii, 137) and Wil- 
liam L. Stone 4 hold that some or a few of the members stoned 
on July 4th. 

William T Read, in his life of his grandfather George Read 
(p. 229), is assuredly mistaken in saving it was signed on 
July 4th " by all present in Congress on that day except Mr 
Dickinson." Force flatly contradicts this statement (origin- 
ating with Jefferson) contained in Lord Mahon's History. 5 ' 

Philadelphia's noted historian, Watson, quotes Mr. McKean's 
letter, that "the Declaration of Independence was not actually 
signed on the 4th of July." 6 

Mrs. Nellie Hess Morris, in a magazine article on the Decla- 
ration, regards it " as a question I cannot venture to decide." 7 
The latest, and most thorough and searching investigator of 
this subject is Judge Mellen Chamberlain, of Boston, in his 
Authentication of the Declaration of Independence* wherein 
he shows that it was not generally signed on July 4th ; but he 
does not touch upon any other phase of the question. 

One naturally now turns to the printed journals of Congress, 
to see what evidence is there recorded, which can be construed 
so variously ; but, as will be seen below, the printed journals 
are inaccurate and misleading, and have doubtless been the 
cause of much of this confusion. The journal (for 1776) was 
first printed by order of Congress by Robert Aitken, Philadel- 
phia, 1777 (vols. 1 and 2). The whole Journal is in thirteen 
volumes, printed from time to time by Aitken, D.C.Claypoole 
John Dunlap, and J. Patterson. 

The Journal was reprinted in 1777, vols. 1 and 2 ouly • 
again m 1800 by Folwell in thirteen volumes ; and in 1823 by 

1 Rise of the Republic, p. 544. 

*FicldBook of Rev., 1860,Ji., 79, and Harp. Mag., xlvii., 258. 

3 Potler's Am. Monthly, Phila., iv.-v., for 1875, 754-7. 

*The Dec. of Ind. in a New Light, Harp. Mag., lxvii., 210. 

b The Dec. Ind., London, 1855. p. 63. 

6 Anvals. Phila. ed., 1884, 3 vols., i., 400. 

Toiler's Am. Month/g. iv.-v., 498. 

Cambridge, 1885; reprinted from Mats. Hist. Coll., November, 1884. 



10 OBSERVATIONS OF THE 

Way and Gideon in 4 vols. These are all the earlier editions 
mentioned in B. P.' Poore's Catalogue of Government Publica- 
tions. 

The proceedings of July 4th, 1776, according to the printed 
Journal, 1st edition (1777), are as follows, literatim: 

"Agreeable to the order of the day, the Congress resolved itself, 
into a committee of the whole, to take into their farther consider- 
ation the declaration, and after some time the president resumed 
the chair, and Mr. Harrison reported, that the committee have 
agreed to a declaration which they desired him to report. 

"The declaration being read, was agreed to, as follows ; 

"A DECLARATION by the Representatives of the UNITED 
STATES of AMERICA in Congress assembled. 

\_Here follows the Declaration."^ 

"The foregoing declaration was by order of Congress engrossed 
and signed by the following members: 

[Here follow the names in groups, against the names of their re- 
spective States. J 

Resolved, That copies of the declaration be sent to the several 
assemblies, conventions and committees, or councils of safety, and 
to the several commanding officers of the continental troops ; that 
it be proclaimed in each of the United States, and at the head of 
the army." 

In the editions of 1777 and 1800 there are printed but fifty- 
five names subscribed — Mr. McKean's being omitted. In the 
later edition of 1823 this omission is corrected, and his name is 
printed with the others. The discovery of this omission of Mr. 
McKean's name was one of the causes which led to this discus- 
sion as to the signing. 

Wishing to settle the matter if possible, I obtained permis- 
sion from the Secretary of State to examine the original manu- 
script journals of Congress. After a perusal of them, I came 
into possession (through the kindness of the author,) of Judge 
Mellen Chamberlain's Authentication of the Declaration of 
Independence ; and found that in this investigation, I had un- 
knowingly been pretty much treading in his footsteps. 

It may be explained here, that there are three original manu- 
script journals, which are almost wholly in the handwriting of 
Charles Thomson : 1st. The Rough Journal, so called, con- 
sisting of entries made probably while Congress was sitting, 
which is the standard. 2d. The Smooth Journal, a copy of 
the previous, the entries being somewhat amplified and punctu- 



tit A 



/^ J*~///6^ 



// 

/ / ' 

fidhk<r,~ 0iM uU*U /K<,„ u^Ji^J *^y& 



V/s Gtlft ''/if' 



•A/,,.,.,?, 



/•C t.j f~n(?t>-t* 



r.N congr e; 
A D E C L A 

thi R E P R E S EN 

UNITED STATE: 

I n G E N E RAL CONi 
TV. : 



I 



a 



w 




COPYRIGHT, 1890. BY ROBEHDEAU BUCHANAN. 




— •■v»"~^i »'""'•" 



tU|M"f*$|"|f 



~^j 



z 



K 












R 



* * ' N h 5? . 






?^i ♦. ^ s 4 * * &•*& £ ft - .* > * 






■.-*-» ... :: 



P3 rr 



/"\ 



m w 






rn 


■ -7- 


as • saaa M 




v.- 



P v^ 




DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. H 

ated. The 3d is the Secret Journal, which is not a daily 
record, the consecutive dates of a portion in 1776 being June 
24; July 8, 11, 17, 19; August 2; then November 27. There 
is consequently in the Secret Journal no entry under Julv 4 
1776. J J ' 

In the manuscript Smooth Journal, the declaration is wholly 
in writing, with no attesting clause, and no names attached, 
either in writing or in print. 

Upon examining the Rough Journal, much to ray surprise, 
I found no written names appended to the Declaration, not 
even Hancock's, and the Declaration itself, with the attesta- 
tion, is in print on a large folded sheet of paper, attached by 
four red wafers. These facts do not appear to have been gen- 
erally known, or at least have not appeared in print, before the 
publication of Judge Chamberlain's pamphlet. 

The page of the journal of July 4th is towards the left hand, 
and is 12J by 8 inches with a margin of 2| inches, on the edge 
of the page at the left, not separated by any line. In the 
margin is a duplicate date, and in the body of the page the 
writing covers slightly more than half of the page ; the lower 
part being left blank, undoubtedly to receive the printed 
broadside now found there. This page of the journal is here 
reproduced in fac-simile, a photo-lithograph, and reduced one- 
half size of the original. For this especial favor, — the first 
time that any portions of these journals have been reproduced 
in fac-simile,— the author is indebted to the Hon. William F. 
Wharton, Assistant Secretary of State, and to Frederick Ban- 
croft, Esq., Chief of the Bureau of Rolls and Library. 

The Declaration is on paper 18 inches long by 14| inches 
wide; the print covering a space 17| by llf inches. It is 
folded upwards at the bottom of the page (where it is at the 
present time worn away and torn completely across,) and 
folded a second time in closing the book. It begins and ends 
as follows, the positions of the wafers being also shown: 



12 OBSERVATIONS ON THE 

o o o 

In CONGRESS, July 4> 1776. 

°A DECLARATION 

By the REPRESENTATIVES of the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

In GENERAL CONGRESS assembled. 
"HEN in the courfe of human events, it becomes necessary 



W 



[Here follows the Declaration] 



Signed hy Okder and in Behalf of the CONGRESS, 
JOHN HANCOCK, President. 

ATTEST. 

CHARLES THOMSON, Secretary. 



Philadelphia: printed by John Dunlap. 

Lossing states that the Declaration was passed about two 
o'clock. 1 It was printed during the day and evening ; and the 
next day sent forth to the world. 2 On the 8th, by order of 
the Committee of Safety, it was publicly read by John Nixon 
from the State House steps. In Judge Chamberlain's Authen- 
tication, a letter from Theodore F. Dwight, librarian of the 
State Department, states that this first publication is the one 
wafered in the journal, and that among the papers of Washing- 
ton is another copy, the same which he read, or caused to be 
read, to the army. 

The Declaration was also published in the Evening Post of 
of July 6th, signed by the President and Secretary, and later 
it appeared in other papers. 

The reader has now before him all the facts upon which the 
foregoing diversified opinions are based. It is seen that there 
is no copy of the Declaration signed in the handiuriting of 
any one on July 4th, the only attestation being in print ; and 
no paper is known such as mentioned by Jefferson, signed by 
all the members. It cannot be denied that such a paper ever 
existed, for " it may have lost," says Judge Chamberlain, 

1 Field Book, 1860, ii., 78. 

2 Scharf and Westcott, i., 317 ; Frothingham, 544. 



t 



,. Willi mmmammmmmmmmmmmmmmmm — rmm\ ' i.tmm 

Cm \ ... ?«&? fow+M'4 ''■> 

"•■"/. *h %!*» to?** &*<<&% <** 

&es„&«,*«>^ *'***&/£**& <>»;»>«/><>»<>/ 






./ ft. 






*M*4 {{?<*><*»"" »*****•& /,r„y<~ 



/« 



, k _ J> v c/,/,f f/u ht*ntt" r» ;>"»"<*' /" 






vi v Irs " * \~\< 






*/< !hi'{tffif>)e'y>it>tJ'i's/>*f" •»,'• 

"i 9- •. ' . / " i 



^DEAU BUCHANA^ 



DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 13 

eitd h " re are ^^ maldng h far m ° re P r0babIe thafc ifc never 
THE ENGROSSED DECLARATION. 
As to the signing of the Declaration on parchment there is 
no .uncertainty The record is contained in L Secre Journal 
first published by order of Congress by Thomas B. Waft in 
tim: Publication the record stands as follows, litem- 

Ifhhf/-]!' 177G ' ^ esolved ' That the declaration passed on the 
4th be fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title 1 and style of 
-'The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United 
States op America;' and that the same, when engrossed be 
signed by every member of Congress." engrossed, be 

«rn^T S \ 2, 1776, , The Decla ™tion of Independence bein* en- 
grossed, and compared at the table, was signed by the members."' 

b^ 7 h 3 S - Pa . ge of t 1 he 1 ori .g inal manuscript Secret Journal is 121 
by 7f inches, ruled with a red line forming a margin of l! 
inches on the left side. The whole entry is seen tote a post 
entry, and interlined. It is in ink decidedly lighter colored than 
the rest of the page. This page reduced one-half size, is also 
here reproduced as a photolithograph. For this privilege we 
are indebted, as in the former case, to the Hon. William F 

cToft Fs,', r. ,Sta r nt f S J Cr ^ arj ° f S* to ' and t0 Frederick Ban; 
croft, Fsq., Chief of the Bureau of Rolls and Library 2 

In accordance with the vote of Congress, the engrossed Decla- 
ration was SI gned on the 2d of August by the fifty-four mem- 
bers then present; Mr. McKean and Thornton signed late" 
making the fifty-six. This document is now in the Department 
ot btate ; the signatures are arranged in six columns of 8, 7, 

Hi Ttlt 7 anC ° Ck ' 12 ' ° and 18 nameS ' the del W if 
each fetate in groups-except Hancock, the president, and 

Thornton who signed later -but without the names of the 

nafsT ( Mr C fT im P r °P er1 ^ P^ted in the published jour- 
nals) Mr. Mckean's name is the last in the fourth column 
with the names of the other delegates from Delaware ' 

Ihere were in Congress on the 4th of July, 1776 seventv 
^^^^^ in theft seats Some 

J See also Force's American Archives, V. i 1584-97 

word Declaration, line 2 of proceeding of inl 7dt\ 7 / **. I^ g e 

17), Should commence withTcapitalf * ^ AuthenUcati ^ V- 18, 1. 



14 OBSERVATIONS ON THE 

of these seventy afterwards joined the British, and the terms 
of others expired before the 2d of August, so that on that day 
only forty-seven of these seventy signed, Mr. McKean, the 48th, 
was the last of all to sign. During the interval, however, seven 
new members were elected as follows: Rush, Ross, Clymer, 
J. Smith, and Taylor, all of Pennsylvania ; Carroll and Chase, 
of Maryland. Besides these, Thornton of New Hampshire was 
subsequently elected, and took his seat November 4th. He 
also received permission to sign, making up the fifty-six names. 1 

Immediately after the passage of the Declaration on the 4th 
of July, Mr. McKean obtained leave of absence to march with 
his battalion, and was not present when the engrossed copy was 
signed August 2d. As late as August 8th, 1776, Caesar Rod- 
ney writes to Thomas Rodney that Mr. McKean is still in the 
Jerseys, and not likely soon to return. 2 On the 27th of August 
Mr. McKean was present at the opening of the Delaware Con- 
stitutional Convention at Newcastle. 3 And according to Mr. Mc- 
Kean's letter to Thomas Rodney above mentioned, and quoted 
on a subsequent page, and also the letters to Mr. Adams on a 
previous page, it would appear that he signed the Declaration 
between these two dates, and not as late as October, as stated 
in " Sanderson's Lives." 

There are circumstances, however, which render this infer- 
ence doubtful. Congress, on January 18th, 1777, directed that 
copies of the Declaration, with the names then subscribed, 
should be authenticated and sent to each State. The names 
were then accordingly printed for the first time, 4 and these 
copies were transmitted to the States by Hancock about Janu- 
ary 31, 1777. Mr. McKean's name does not appear upon 
these copies, although Thornton's name is there ; from which 
it seems evident that Mr. McKean did not sign until after Jan- 
uary 18th or 31st, 1777. William L. Stone, in his article, 
The Declaration of Independence in a New Light, 5 says, 
" Thomas McKean from Delaware, as he says himself, did not 
sign till January, 1777." Bancroft states in his History, 6 that 

1 Scharf and Westcott, i., 317 et seg. 

2 Force, Am. Archives, V., i., 833. 

3 Journal, pub. 1776. 

* Journals; also Winsor s Nar. and Grit. Hist., vi., 268. 

b Harp. Mag., lxvii., 211. Mr. Stone kindly informs the author that he 
gathers this statement only from Mr. McKean's four letters on this subject. 

6 Ed. 1886, ix., 60 ; ed. 1885, v., 16. Justin Winsor, in his History, vi., 
268, and Judge Chamberlain, in his Authentication, p. 21, as collateral mat- 
ter have quoted this date of Bancroft's. 



DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 15 

Mr. McKean signed in 1781, which is in itself preposterous, 
from the nature of the instrument. Peter Force, who knew 
more of Revolutionary history than any man living in later days, 
does not appear to have known the exact date ; he says, 1 " The 
signing by the members was discontinued at the close of the year 

1776 One signature only,— that of Thomas McKean 

— was afterwards added to the Declaration of Independence." 

In the earlier publications of the Journals of Congress, as 
already remarked, Mr. McKean's name was omitted from the 
list of signers of the Declaration. "The error," says he, in 
the letter to William McCorkle and Son, June 16, 181 7, 2 re- 
mained uncorrected until 1781, 3 when I was appointed to print 
the laws of Pennsylvania." In 1796, Alexander J. Dallas, 
also in printing the laws of Pennsylvania, discovered the dis- 
crepancy and investigated it. Mr. McKean's reply to Mr. 
Dallas, dated September 26, 1796, gives this explanation: 
"The journal was first printed by Mr. John Dunlap in 1778, 4 
and probably copies, with the names then signed to it, were 
printed in August 1776, and that Mr. Dunlap printed the 
names from one of them.'''' 5 

We have thus full knowledge of the signing of the Declar- 
ation on parchment, which will enable us to have a clearer un- 
derstanding of the proceedings of July 4, 1776. It is seen 
that the general signing did not take place, as commonly sup- 
posed, on that eventful day; and we can now recur to the 
question : Did any one sign the Declaration of Independence 
on the day it was passed ? 

Since there is no Declaration known, in or out of the jour- 
nals of Congress, containing the ivritten signatures of the 
president and secretary affixed on the 4th of July, and not a 
scrap of evidence that such a paper ever existed, the author 
considers it very doubtful whether even Hancock or Thomson 
signed on the 4th. 

In the first place it was not the custom of the Continental 
Congress that resolutions in general should be signed by any 
one. When passed, they were entered on the journal. Sub- 

1 The Dec. Ind., etc., London, 1855, p. 65. 

*ffiles> Reg., xii., 278, and Diary of Christopher Marshall Duane, 1877. p. 
291 et seq. v 

8 This expression and date may have misled Mr. Bancroft. 

'John Dunlap printed some of the later volumes, and Mr. McKean, with- 
out looking in the earlier volumes, may have assumed that Dunlap printed 
them all. 

5 Sanderson, where the letter is given in full. 



16 OBSERVATIONS ON THE 

sequently, copies of resolutions that were sent to General Wash- 
ington and others, were authenticated by the written signature 
of John Hancock ; but such papers were copies, and not original 
records. There are no signed resolutions among the miscel- 
laneous papers of Congress preserved by Charles Thomson. 
This volume of papers was shown to me when making inquiries 
at the Department of State, where the facts in this paragraph 
were ascertained. In answer to a further inquiry as to whether 
there are any resolutions of the Continental Congress signed 
in writing by the President, or by the President and Secretary, 
the following letter states the matter officially : 

Department of State, 
"Washington, October 21, 1889. 

ROBERDEAU BUCHANAN, ESQR., 

The Clarendon, Washington City. 
Sir : In reply to the enquiry contained in your letter of the 
3d instant, I have to say that there are not in the Archives of the 
Continental Congress in this Department any resolutions or 
other papers signed in writing by the President or by the Presi- 
dent and Secretary prior to their entry on the journals. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

J. Fenner Lee, Chief Clerk. 

Is it likely that John Hancock would violate the usual cus- 
tom of Congress by signing the Declaration unless especially 
authorized to do so ? And the question may also be asked : 
If it required a formal resolution to prepare and sign the en- 
grossed Declaration on the 2d of August, would it not likewise 
have required a similar resolution for Hancock to sign the 
Declaration on the 4th of July ? No such resolution appears 
on the journal, and we may therefore doubt such alleged sign- 
ing. In accordance with custom, the entry on the journal is 
a sufficient attestation of the fact that the Declaration had 
passed Congress. 

No argument can be drawn from the wording of the attest- 
ing clause — Signed by order and in behalf of — that it presup- 
poses a resolution of Congress ; because these words, and others 
of similar import, have several times been made use of in other 
documents, showing the phrase to be one of common use in 
those days, but perhaps obsolete at the present time. 1 

x In support of this statement, the following may be found in Force's 
American Archives: IV., vi., 1136, Address to Gen. Washington, June 29, 
1776, "By desire, and in behalf of the several Regiments in the Second 
Brigade;" IV., vi., 847, Petition of Gen. Daniel Roberdeau to the Assembly, 
May 20, 1776, "Signed in behalf of, and by the desire of the inhabitants," 



DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 17 

As no Declaration bearing the written signature of John 
Hancock on July 4th is known ever to have been in existence, 
we have only the printed Declaration from which to infer the 
signing. This signing, if it was done, was not the vital act, 
giving life and force to the Declaration ; but merely the attesta- 
tion of that act already consummated ; and, judging by the 
printed broadside, performed wholly for the satisfaction of the 
public. It was therefore a matter of secondary importance. 
This written copy itself was not intended to go before the pub- 
lic, or to be used in any legal proceeding; it was simply a 
printer's copy, and the printed Declaration made from it would 
be the same whether printed from genuine signatures or from 
the same names written by another person. And from these 
considerations, the author hazards the conjecture that no one 
properly signed on July Ifilx. But in preparing a copy of the 
Declaration for the printer, some one, — perhaps Charles 
Thomson, used the customary attesting phrase, and wrote his 
own name as secretary, and that of John Hancock as president. 
And this paper being no part of the public records was not pre- 
served. Thus these two names might have appeared in print, 
with no manuscript as their authority, to turn up at a later day 
for the satisfaction of investigators. 

This view presented itself to me upon reading the broad ex- 
pression authenticated, made use of by George Bancroft and 
others, as though they did not feel warranted by the facts to 
employ the unequivocal word signed. Hancock could " au- 
thenticate" the Declaration by directing Charles Thomson to 
write his name for him in the printer's copy, although that act 
would not be signing. 

This opinion is admitted to be a mere inference, but it is a 
simple inference, and a natural one to be drawn when there is 
no evidence. It stands upon grounds certainly as firm as the 
opposite side of the question, which is based upon a complex 
inference ; that because there are printed signatures there must 
have been written ones. The simple and plain inference here 

etc.; V., i., 170, Address to Gen. Roberdeau, July 10, 1776, "Signed by or- 
der and in behalf of the Battalion ;" V., ii., 1075, Address of inhabitants of 
New Jersey to Governor Tryon, October 16, 1776, "Signed by desire and 
in behalf of the inhabitants ;" V., iii., 484, Address by a meeting of citizens, 
November 2, 1776, " Signed by order and in behalf of, the meeting." These 
were found by casually turning over the pages of Force's Archives ; doubt- 
less there are others. See also Genealogy of the Roberdeau Family, pp. 61, 
62, 63, 68. This same wording much amplified is also made use of in the 
Articles of Confederation. 



18 OBSERVATIONS ON THE 

is, that because there are printed signatures there may have 
been written names ; but to go farther, and infer again that 
those written names were genuine signatures, is a double in- 
ference not warranted. 

Considered under the theory of probabilities, if we assume 
the chances to be equal, whether there were written names or 
not, the probability that there were, is J. And if the chances 
are equal that the written names were signatures, the proba- 
bility of this being so, is J of |, or \. The probability that 
they were not signatures, is also \ (because we suppese the 
chances to be the same), and these two fourths together make 
up the half first obtained. Suppose now, to further illustrate 
this, we make a new condition, and ask, whether the names 
were written with a pen or a pencil ; if one is just as likely to 
occur as the other, the probability is J of J of J, or \. 

We see, therefore, that like a pair of scales, there is a bal- 
ance kept up; the more we weigh down one side with con- 
ditions the higher does the other side ascend, and the lighter 
or less is the probability of the occurrence. The degree of 
probability may be different in each step, but the reasoning 
will be the same ; for example, the probability of there having 
been written names may be greater than | ; and persons may 
differ in their estimates of these quantities. However they 
may be varied, the more steps we take from known facts the 
less the probability ; the probability of the first step (that there 
were written names) must necessarily be greater than the 
second step (that these names are genuine signatures), because 
the latter is represented by the product of two proper fractions, 
which product must necessarily be less than either fraction. 
The second step may equal, but can never exceed the former 
in probability. Therefore we conclude that it is more probable 
that there were written names, than that they were genuine 
signatures. 

Another aspect of the question is this: It being a legal 
maxim that it is impossible to prove a negative, the burden of 
proof is thrown upon those who hold the affirmative of any 
question to bring forward evidence to support it ; and that has 
not been done in this case, for an inference is not proof; there- 
fore the negative side of this question should stand until over- 
thrown by some evidence ; and we must hold that the names 
were not genuine signatures. 

Why it is, that in preference to this simple negative infer- 
ence, the far-fetched affirmative side should be generally held, 



DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 19 

can easily be explained if we examine the facts as they suc- 
cessively became known. The copies of the Declaration sent 
to the States, the published journals of Congress, and the en- 
grossed Declaration itself, all point to the 4th of July as the 
date of the general signing. Mr. McKean alone held the cor- 
rect opinion, and he was contradicted by Jefferson and Adams. 
This opinion generally obtained for forty-five years, until the 
Secret Journals were published in 1821. So strong a hold 
has it taken upon the public mind, that like many popular fal- 
lacies it has gained the impress of truth. It is still held by the 
vast majority of people, and doubtless will also be till the end 
of time. When the Secret Journals were published, and it 
was found that the general signing did not take place on July 
4th, this popular idea of signing, still holding possession of 
the minds of investigators, warped their judgment; and imbued 
with the idea that somebody signed on the 4th, if not the fifty- 
six, they naturally turned to the first printed copies of the 
Declaration, and from them inferred that John Hancock and 
Charles Thomson were those who signed on that day. 

The main question having now been considered in the light 
of the custom of Congress, demonstrated by mathematics, 
judged by legal maxims, and examined with our minds not 
warped by pre-conceived notions, we are constrained to the 
conclusion that no one properly signed the Declaration of In- 
dependence on July 4th, 1776. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0118019210 9| 





\ 



w 






